Oege Boonstra

Broadcast Magazine celebrates its 35th anniversary, a milestone prominently featured in this edition of the media trade magazine. It has evolved into a genuine glossy, allowing it to stand toe-to-toe with international counterparts. Indeed, media trade magazines thrive abroad as well. Each has its own distinct identity, as the trade journals that appear internationally are remarkably diverse. For anyone following global developments in the media industry, they are all well worth reading.

The mother of all media trade magazines is the American Variety. Its first edition was published as early as 1905. In 1930, Variety faced competition from a newcomer, the Hollywood Reporter. These publications remain indispensable resources for anyone wishing to closely follow developments in the American media industry. Interestingly, ownership of these magazines frequently changed hands, suggesting they were seen as valuable, easily tradable assets. Even private equity firms have invested in them at various stages.

In 1973, the UK saw the launch of its first media trade magazine, simply named Broadcast. This monthly publication closely follows developments in the British market and has successfully expanded into a digital platform. Since 2003, the UK's audiovisual content industry has experienced rapid growth, which Broadcast has thoroughly documented

This year, the publisher took a bold step by deciding to expand internationally. Broadcast International focuses primarily on developments in the world of audiovisual content production, quickly establishing itself as a noteworthy source of insider news.

For those interested in the French market, Écran Total is indispensable. It is also a monthly magazine, covering the film and entertainment sectors broadly. True to French tradition, it devotes significant attention to the ‘Exception Française’, the protection of the French film industry. In a way, it represents the ugly duckling among the international trade journals, as the French television world remains relatively closed off, and Écran Total reflects that philosophy.

Then there are the Germans: they truly have their act together. DWDL is an in-depth online platform, filled with excellent articles produced by a team of journalists specializing in the media sector. For those who want to understand how things work in the large German media market, it is an indispensable source, offering daily, detailed articles. Last year, DWDL garnered widespread attention with minute-by-minute reporting of the ProSieben Sat.1 Annual General Meeting, in which our Dutch colleague Bert Habets played a leading role. A clear example of how a media trade magazine can evolve into a highly relevant online platform for our industry.

Remarkably, smaller European countries lack a medium comparable to BM. Broadcast Magazine — now smartly rebranded as BM, since it long ago outgrew its original focus solely on broadcasting — is a successful example, thanks to the entrepreneurial drive of Rob Klap and the tireless editorial leadership of Jeroen te Nuijl. It demonstrates yet again the significant role the Netherlands plays in the international audiovisual content industry.

Sports rights holders are rubbing their hands in anticipation, because the value of sports rights is rising sharply. After the huge price hikes of the previous decade, there had been somewhat of a stagnation in recent years. The French Ligue 1 even saw the value of its new multi-year deal drop. But now, a new group of deep-pocketed interested parties has emerged: the streamers are about to make major investments in sports. Specialized sports streamers like DAZN have been active for several years. Market leader Netflix, after broadcasting the Paul/Tyson match, has also discovered the power of live sports. YouTube (more on that in my next column) invested in American football earlier. According to figures from Ampère Analysis, streamers will spend over 12 billion dollars on sports rights this year.

The investments that British-Ukrainian entrepreneur Sir Lech Blavatnik has been making for years are starting to bear some fruit. His company DAZN is growing rapidly and attracting one investor after another. The company is running at a significant loss and has a massive need for financing. This month, according to insiders, the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund paid a billion dollars for less than 10% of the company. With the promise that he’s building the Netflix of sports, Blavatnik has managed to convince investors. As a result, the company has become a tough competitor to pay-TV channels like Sky and is squeezing many public and commercial TV broadcasters even further.

Entertainment streamers, meanwhile, also see the value of sports—and not just for attracting new subscribers. Keeping churn (the cancellation of subscriptions) under control is at least as important from a strategic standpoint. Therefore, Netflix is going to invest in American football. Less dominant players like Peacock and Paramount+ are also heading in that direction—a development that has the National Football League (NFL) rubbing its hands in anticipation. We also know that trends in the U.S. sooner or later make their way to Europe, which will undoubtedly mean that here, too, the value of sports rights will shoot through the roof.

It’s clear, however, that this hasn’t been all smooth sailing. DAZN incurred the wrath of German consumer organizations by hiking its prices for the Bundesliga and the Champions League a little too enthusiastically. Technical problems in Italy plagued the sports streamer, and even Netflix underestimated the impact of a mega-event like the Paul/Tyson match. Those are temporary problems, though—ones that will disappear as streaming technology advances and industry expertise continues to evolve.

Private equity firms see these developments as well and are becoming more and more interested in sports organizations. And here again, the NFL is at the center of attention. After an extensive study, the league concluded that private equity firms (at least to a limited extent, for now) can invest in NFL clubs. Sports are increasingly being valued for what they’re truly worth, because there’s still so much potential in them—due in no small part to streamers taking an interest in the rights. In other words: sports are streaming ahead!

In recent years, money seemed to be endless in the media world. The advertising markets were booming after the COVID crisis, funding for public broadcasting remained largely untouched, and the marketing machines of new video streaming platforms worked overtime. Investments in content were skyrocketing, there was insufficient staff to complete all productions, and the sky seemed to be the limit.

How different things are now. Market leader Netflix, for example, has reduced content investments by a third. Advertising markets have also come under pressure, particularly in Germany. Finally, politics has again started to interfere with broadcasting contributions: in the Netherlands, the budget for public broadcasting was cut by €150 million, and other countries are also pausing to reassess.

It is therefore unsurprising that all media organizations have started to watch their spending. Some have even implemented drastic budget cuts. A good example is Warner Bros. Discovery, where one initiative after another has been announced to achieve billions in savings. The cause is the enormous debt burden the company carries. It must be said that this policy is paying off: the debt has been reduced by a third in three years. A remarkable achievement. It’s hardly surprising that financial engineering played a key role in this process. However, the fact that it is done so openly is. One example: a film like Batgirl, which was already in post-production, was completely written off. The costs were booked "below the line," meaning they did not appear in the profit figures. The reason: the series was considered "non-core business." This kind of accounting trick is being adopted by more media companies.

Another interesting aspect is the funding of public broadcasters. In the Netherlands, under the leadership of the then-almighty Harry Kramer, the broadcasting fee was incorporated into general taxation around the turn of the millennium. It was deemed that the fee was outdated, so it was abolished, and public broadcasting was then funded from general government funds. This had significant disadvantages for public broadcasting: politics could now directly interfere with its financing. The result is well-known: public broadcasting has been facing significant cuts in recent years.

In the United Kingdom, they still use the old system of a television and radio license fee. Everyone who owns a TV must pay £169,50 annually. Many Brits are questioning why this mandatory fee still exists in an era of video services paid for directly. Interestingly, it is considered a legal offence to not pay the license fee. It’s no surprise that it’s now up to creative financial minds. It will be interesting to see what emerges from this: even a tax on broadband connectivity is being considered. A system that Spain recently dismantled. Financial engineering of hand has become the norm in both the public and commercial media domains...